The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
has addressed issues relating to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)
fishing activities in a number of contexts over the past
decade[8], and more recently in the context of
the FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent Deter and Eliminate IUU fishing
(IPOA-IUU). GFCM has considered the need for information on non-Member fishing
vessels (1994 - 95), the need to develop a control scheme for "flag of
convenience" vessels and the diffusion of misinformation on IUU fishing by
several groups (2000)[9] and the implementation
of MedFisis, a regional project to help countries raise the minimum standard in
fisheries statistics system, which foresees the establishment of a Vessel
Register. It was recognized that the number of shared fisheries already
identified justifies common action to be taken for those fisheries at
international levels.[10]

More recently, at its twenty-eighth session (October 2003),
GFCM reviewed issues common to combating IUU fishing, including the status and
implementation of the IPOA-IUU in the Mediterranean and recent actions and
measures taken by selected regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs)
in this respect. The Commission acknowledged the wish expressed by Members that
the implementation of the IPOA-IUU be addressed both at national level and at
regional level through GFCM. It decided to adopt a step-by-step approach whereby
the various dimensions of the issue could be tackled in a holistic manner. In
this respect, some delegations suggested that the establishment of "white" and
"black" lists of vessels could be an initial
undertaking.[11]

The Commission agreed that a workshop of Experts from GFCM
countries should be organized immediately following the June 2004 FAO Technical
Consultation to Review Progress and Promote the Full Implementation of the IPOA
to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing and the IPOA for the Management of
Fishing Capacity (June 2004 FAO Technical Consultation).

Subsequently, the Declaration adopted by the Ministerial
Conference for the Sustainable Development of Fisheries in the Mediterranean in
November 2003 (2003 Ministerial Declaration), in relation to IUU fishing,
reiterated and built upon the approach adopted by the twenty-eighth session of
the GFCM.[12] The Declaration:

invited GFCM to adopt at its twenty-ninth session effective measures based
on the FAO IPOA-IUU, with priority for establishing procedures for identifying
vessels carrying out IUU activities (black list), as well as action to be
taken against these vessels, and furthermore, drawing up registers of vessels
authorized to fish (white list);

referred to principles upon which the implementation by GFCM of a system
of inspection, tailored to the specific nature of the Mediterranean fisheries,
should be based;[13] and

invited the GFCM to adopt in 2004 policy guidelines of the control scheme
with the aim of progressively developing measures defining in particular
the obligations of the Parties, the use of new technologies and mechanisms
for inspection at sea and in port.

Each of these areas is discussed below in this
document.

1.2 Issues relating to implementation of the IPOA-IUU by
GFCM

As noted in the information paper prepared for the
twenty-eighth session of GFCM, "Implementation of the International Plan of
Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing and its Relations and Effects of the Management of Fishing Capacity in
the Mediterranean"[14], a number of
international fisheries instruments have been concluded that have broadened and
strengthened the role of RFMOs in fisheries
management.[15] Many GFCM Members have ratified
one or more of these instruments, which have progressively defined the role and
responsibilities of coastal states, flag states, port states and RFMOs,
including duties relating to high seas fishing.

Many of the provisions in the international instruments
provided the impetus for RFMOs to agree on specific measures relating to IUU
fishing, including information and data requirements, establishment of
registers, requirements for high seas fishing, landings, port inspection and
transshipment, inspection and enforcement and cooperation with
non-members.

In particular, the IPOA-IUU, a voluntary instrument,
reinforces these provisions and calls upon states to develop and implement
national plans of action by 2004 that should include actions to implement
initiatives adopted by regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs). This
target date has been reinforced at high levels, including by the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in 2002 and United Nations General Assembly Resolutions
in 2003.

The objective of the IPOA-IUU is to prevent, deter and
eliminate IUU fishing by providing all states with a "toolbox" of comprehensive,
transparent and effective measures by which to act, including through RFMOs. The
IPOA-IUU sets out the responsibilities of all states and flag states, measures
to be taken by coastal states and port states, and internationally agreed
market-related measures. It refers also to responsibilities and measures of
states acting through RFMOs, and of states that are not members of RFMOs. The
measures are integrated, and should be applied in accordance with international
and other applicable law.

Implementation of the IPOA-IUU through GFCM could yield a
number of positive effects. Overall objectives could be to restore the health of
the Mediterranean fish stocks subject to management by GFCM and achieve
long-term conservation and sustainable use of the resources. Depending on the
measures and actions agreed, implementation could promote improved and
integrated fisheries management. This could encompass reliable and comprehensive
databases, strengthened MCS, improved institutional capacities of Members,
strengthened implementation of flag state responsibility and enhanced
cooperation among GFCM Members, as well as between GFCM, other RFMOs, states and
entities. It could also serve as a focus for development and technical
assistance.

Effective implementation of the IPOA-IUU as it relates to the
needs of the GFCM would depend on the commitment of GFCM Members, and on
long-term planning.

1.3 Progress on the implementation of the IPOA-IUU reported by
regional fishery bodies or arrangements and states

Questionnaires were distributed by FAO to regional fishery
bodies (RFBs) and states in late 2003 to provide a basis for assessing the
progress in implementation of the IPOA-IUU, in preparation for the June 2004 FAO
Technical Consultation. The responses by RFBs, showing actions and measures
taken to implement the IPOA-IUU and explained in documents prepared for the
Consultation, are summarized in Table 1; those of the states are summarized in
Tables 2 (two parts) and 3.

For RFBs, the level of activity in implementing the paragraphs
of the IPOA-IUU was assessed by noting the number of RFBs reporting that they
had taken relevant measures or actions: significant activity was
indicated where nine to eleven RFBs had implemented the measure or action;
moderate activity was shown where six to eight RFBs responded
affirmatively; and some activity was indicated where there were five or
less "yes" responses. The results are presented in the three sections of Table
1, showing where the RFBs that have indicated activity in various
areas.[16]

In general, RFBs have undertaken significant to moderate
activity in the priority areas identified for action by GFCM and the 2003
Ministerial Declaration. In this regard, the responses indicate:

significant activity for measures such as maintaining and exchange
records of authorized fishing vessels, maintaining a record of IUU fishing
vessels, MCS[17] and determining
policy objectives for internal purposes;

moderate activity for port control measures, development of boarding
and inspection regimes and the definition of presumptions for IUU fishing
and support vessels, and measures/actions relating to flag state responsibility.

For states, the responses of ten GFCM
Members[18] to the FAO questionnaire were
extracted from the responses of other FAO Members, and these In general,
activity is uneven among respondents in implementing specific actions and
measures specified under each area of the IPOA-IUU, but on the whole the
responses indicate:

significant activity (up to ten respondents) in the areas of law
and policy, measures/actions in relation to nationals, requirements for
fishing vessels, responsibilities of a flag state and cooperation through
regional fishery management organizations;

moderate activity (no more than eight respondents) in the areas
of MCS, catch determination and verification and internationally agreed
market related measures;

some activity (no more than five respondents) in the areas of high
seas fishing activities, knowledge of fishing vessel position in areas of
national jurisdiction[19], access
by foreign fishing vessels[20],
information and inspections[21],
measures/actions against IUU fishing and formulation of a national plan
of action to combat IUU fishing (NPOA-IUU).

Specific questions to which all ten respondents indicated
"yes" were:

Do you think your states nationals are generally aware of the effects
of IUU fishing?

Is it an offence for your states nationals to undermine conservation
and management measures of RFMOs?

Does your state have the means to control the fishing activities of the
vessels registered in your state?

Although these results are based on responses by only ten GFCM
Members, they indicate trends and areas in which greater national level activity
may be needed for areas identified by GFCM as priorities, such as MCS,
inspections and taking measures/actions against IUU fishing.

1.4 Effectiveness of measures and actions of GFCM Members in
implementing the IPOA-IUU

A specific questionnaire (in three parts) was distributed to
GFCM Members to prepare for the June 2004 Workshop on IUU fishing in the
Mediterranean, with the objectives of seeking Members views as to the
effectiveness of their measures to combat IUU fishing, identifying the major
types of IUU fishing in areas under their jurisdiction and identifying
constraints and solutions for combating IUU fishing activities in the GFCM
Region. Prior to the Workshop, six Members had
responded[22], and the responses are summarized
in Tables 3 - 5.

Although the responses are not representative of the full
membership, some trends are apparent from the information received.
Interestingly, they are similar to the trends identified by the responses of ten
GFCM Members to the FAO questionnaire for states described above in Section 1.3,
for which Members were asked to indicate whether measures had been taken. In the
GFCM questionnaire, focus was placed more on the respondents views of the
effectiveness of the measures they had taken. Both questionnaires were based on
the measures in the IPOA-IUU.

Four or more respondents indicated that the following national
measures are highly effective in combating IUU fishing:

national laws in respect of control of national vessels and vessel information;

the means to control registered vessels;

comprehensive information on the register of fishing vessels; and

for port access, requirements for reasonable advance notice of entry into
port, a copy of the authorization to fish and details of the fishing trip
and quantities of fish on board.

A total of four or more respondents indicated that the
following national measures are of low-to-medium effectiveness, or are not
applicable:

effectiveness of national laws in respect of fishing information, port
inspections, authority for high seas boarding and inspections and enforcement
(use of technologies such as VSM and offences, fines);

mechanisms for inspection at sea;

mechanisms for inspection in port;

comprehensive high seas fishing vessel data submitted to FAO;

catch verification procedures;

requirement for VMS for foreign fishing vessels;

cooperation through RFMOs on market-related measures to combat IUU fishing;

steps to prevent trade or import of IUU caught fish; and

priority for formulating and adopting an NPOA-IUU.

The responses relating to the types of IUU fishing and
constraints and solutions for combating IUU fishing activities are summarized
below in Section 2.4.2.

2 Relevant activity and constraints among GFCM Members for
combating IUU fishing

2.1 Adoption of National Plans of Action (NPOAs) and related
instruments by GFCM Members

At the present time there is insufficient information to
describe the IUU fishing situation for all GFCM Members, but responses by some
GFCM Members to the FAO questionnaire to states on implementation of the
IPOA-IUU, described above, refer to different types of IUU fishing of current
concern. These include:

using illegal fishing gear and methods;

fishing in prohibited areas;

fishing during closed seasons.

Although this indicates that a number of GFCM Members
acknowledge the problems associated with IUU fishing activities in their areas,
Spain appears to be the only GFCM Member State to have prepared and published an
NPOA-IUU. The Plan sets out Spanish initiatives taken under all relevant
headings of the IPOA-IUU.[23] Regarding
regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), the IPOA-IUU refers
especially to existing national regulations dealing with activities by flags of
convenience and non-cooperating parties in RFMOs. In its proposed programme of
new measures, the NPOA suggests it would be useful to draw up lists of vessels
and states involved in IUU fishing, complemented by an information system
enabling the continuous updating of information.

Other GFCM Members have indicated their views on the
implementation of the IPOA-IUU at national level. Japan noted that it had
already implemented all the necessary measures to combat IUU fishing, and Egypt
referred to its review of the fisheries law and management regulations in light
of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and GFCM regulations.
Morocco indicated that it has formulated or begun formulation of an NPOA-IUU.
GFCM Members that have indicated they have not yet done so are Algeria, Cyprus,
Lebanon and Tunisia.

On a regional level, the EU Fisheries Council adopted
conclusions and measures on IUU Fishing in 2002. Directly applicable only to the
EU members of GFCM, they urge the European Commission (EC) to actively exercise
its competences with regard to EU Members and in international fora, especially
among the RFMOs, in order to attain specific objectives, including to:

elaborate registers of authorized vessels and lists of unauthorized or
illegal vessels in RFMOs;

draw up lists of states or territories that do not cooperate with the
RFMOs, which might be subject to transparent and non-discriminatory trade
measures;

take measures of control over nationals and Community residents who use
flags of convenience as a means to evade those measures of regulation and
conservation that have been established;

implement monitoring, control and surveillance programmes in each RFMO;

identify and quantify illegal catches, and determine the origin of these
catches in order to act before the corresponding flag state;

implement regimes of classification or documentation regarding fish species
that so require, as an additional measure of international control;

define the rights and obligations of the port state concerning the access
of fishing vessels to port facilities; and

provide assistance for developing countries to fulfil the commitments
they have to undertake in relation with the IPOA-IUU.

Some of these objectives, relevant to GFCM, are currently
under review, such as elaborating registers of authorized vessels and lists of
unauthorized or illegal vessels in RFMOs, and implementing MCS programmes in
RFMOs.

2.2 Summary of existing MCS-related law in GFCM
Members

The mechanisms, tools and needs of existing fisheries
management in the Mediterranean relating to IUU fishing are under review. To
this end, national laws and regulations for fisheries management have been
reviewed under CopeMed for the western Mediterranean and AdriaMed for the
Adriatic Sea.[24] A similar exercise is ongoing
for the Eastern Mediterranean basin. In addition, there has been a review to
identify the type of MCS measures introduced by Mediterranean coastal state in
their fisheries legislation to ensure effective monitoring and control of
fishing vessels operating under their jurisdiction and of fishing vessels flying
their flag on the high seas.[25] This review,
summarized below, provides preliminary comparative information for assessing
needs for implementing regional measures pursuant to the IPOA-IUU into the
national law of GFCM Members.

The review of MCS measures in the legislation of GFCM Members
identifies nine types of measures, described below, but does not extend to an
assessment of the implementation of such measures. For this reason, this section
should be considered together with the summary description of MCS technical
capacity in GFCM Members, in Section 2.3 below. The measures are summarized in
Table 6.

The nine types of measures reviewed are generally recommended
by the IPOA-IUU as actions or measures which states should take, and references
to the IPOA-IUU are given in the text below. On the whole, the review shows a
need for the strengthening of these measures on a national basis in order to
provide a basis for combating IUU fishing, and for harmonizing them to the
extent appropriate for purposes agreed in GFCM.

2.2.1 Register or record of fishing vessels

The IPOA-IUU contains a number of paragraphs relating to
fishing vessel registration[26], with the
general objective of providing the means for states to ensure that vessels
entitled to fly their flag do not engage in or support IUU fishing. For example,
guidelines are provided for states to avoid flagging vessels with a history of
non-compliance. Similarly, a number of tools for the maintenance of a record of
fishing vessels are suggested[27], including
identifying the owners and operators, and specific information required to be
recorded for flag vessels, including those authorized to fish on the high
seas.

Although many GFCM Members have requirements to keep a
register or record of fishing vessels[28],
there are discrepancies as to the information required, the classification of
vessels on the registers[29], prerequisites to
registration[30] and the administrative
arrangements.[31] Based on the information
available, it was not possible to determine whether the use of the terminology
"register" or "record" had any legal implications.

Legislation relating to registers of fishing vessels underpins
the operation of the MedFisis project to establish such registers for GFCM
Members. Although that project can be instrumental in harmonizing such
databases, and is technologically capable of modifying databases in a flexible
manner towards that end, such action would depend to a great extent on
harmonization of legal requirements in each Member.

2.2.2 Register of fishers

Some GFCM Members require a register of professional fishers
to be kept[32], but the objective or use of
each register and benefits of registration are unclear according to available
information. Registers are maintained at various levels in various states -
local and central or both. The requirements for entry into the log, as well as
the requirements for de-registration vary significantly. On the basis of
available information, it does not appear that IUU fishing constitutes a basis
for de-registration, unless, as in one case, it is repeated and
serious.[33] The IPOA-IUU does not specifically
refer to a register of fishers.

2.2.3 Vessel marking

The IPOA-IUU states that authorizations to fish should require
the marking of fishing vessels in accordance with internationally recognized
standards, such as the FAO Standard Specification and Guidelines for the Marking
and Identification of Fishing Vessels. Vessels fishing gear should
similarly be marked in accordance with internationally recognized
standards.[34]

A number of GFCM Members require vessel
marking[35], but from available information,
many do not refer to the FAO Standard Specifications for Marking and
Identification of Fishing Vessels. Marking standards vary, as do requirements of
the items to be identified in marking, such as registration number, licence
number and/or fishing gear.

2.2.4 Inspection and enforcement

The IPOA-IUU provides that states should undertake
comprehensive and effective monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) of
fishing from its commencement, through the point of landing, to final
destination, including by ensuring effective implementation of national and,
where appropriate, internationally agreed boarding and inspection regimes
consistent with international law, recognizing the rights and obligations of
masters and of inspection officers, and noting that such regimes are provided
for in certain international agreements, such as the 1995 UN Fish Stocks
Agreement, and apply only to the parties to those
agreements.[36]

Many GFCM Members have legislation to allow for inspections of
fishing vessels in areas of national
jurisdiction.[37] The review did not indicate
that legislation exists to allow for inspections beyond areas of national
jurisdiction, except for the EU Member
States.[38]

The extent of the authority (other than geographical) of the
inspectors for each Member is unclear, but could eventually be relevant for any
harmonized or regional inspection scheme that may be agreed.

A major objective of inspections is to gather designated
information and submit it to national authorities and as appropriate the flag
state[39], but it is not clear what information
the Members legislation requires to be submitted. This could be a point
for further elaboration and harmonization.

Inspections should be distinguished from enforcement activity
and authority. The powers of fisheries enforcement officers, which can include
searches and seizures, evidence gathering and use of reasonable force,
constitute a fundamental element of MCS for purposes of combating IUU fishing.
It could also be appropriate in the enforcement of VMS systems.

2.2.5 Reporting

Reporting requirements assist in developing a database for
fisheries management and for effective MCS. The IPOA-IUU notes that vessel
authorizations should include a number of specified catch reporting
conditions[40], and reporting and other
conditions for transshipping, where it is
permitted.[41]

Although reporting requirements are found in the fisheries
legislation of most Members, and apply to both national and foreign fishing
vessels, the specific requirements appear to be uneven in terms of the time the
reports are submitted (e.g. after fishing trips, monthly, annually) and the
contents of the report. Logbooks are required by a number of
states[42], and must provide information on the
quantity of fish caught, the size, species, place of catch and the gear.
However, the class of vessels required to keep logbooks varies, for example
commercial fishing vessels[43], or vessels over
10 metres[44] in length.

There is no information available indicating whether other
reporting statistics stated in the IPOA-IUU are required, such as time series of
catch and effort statistics, discard statistics or transshipment
statistics.

Prioritization and harmonization of reporting requirements
would therefore appear to be a consideration for combating IUU fishing for
stocks managed by GFCM, including the ability to implement any regional standard
that may be agreed for reporting.

2.2.6 Landing of catch

The IPOA-IUU encourages states to strengthen port control in
order to combat IUU fishing through the adoption of port state measures
regulating, inter alia, access to ports and landing of
catch.[45] In addition, the IPOA-IUU sets out
the information that port states should collect and remit to the flag state and
relevant RFMO.[46] Provisions regulating the
landing of catch in national ports of Mediterranean coastal states were
identified in the legislation of twelve
Members.[47]

Some states require that all catches taken in waters under
national jurisdiction be landed in a national
port.[48] Some states prohibit landings in port
unless they are monitored by a fisheries
inspector[49], and others have an authorization
scheme to land catch in a national port.[50]
Advance notice of entry into port is required by some
Members[51], but the advance time required
varies, and in some cases this requirement may apply only to foreign
vessels.[52] In several Members, fish or fish
products can only be landed in designated
ports.[53]

There is no available information to indicate whether states
are implementing legislation as encouraged by the IPOA-IUU regarding the
information to be collected and transmitted upon inspection in port. This may be
a useful MCS tool for GFCM consideration.

2.2.7 Transshipment

The IPOA-IUU calls for flag states to ensure that none of
their vessels re-supply a fishing vessel engaged in IUU activities or transship
fish to or from these vessels.[54] Flag states
should also ensure that their fishing, transport and support vessels involved in
transshipment at sea have a prior authorization to fish and report specified
information.[55]

Further, the IPOA-IUU calls for flag states to make
information from catch and transshipment reports available, aggregated according
to areas and species, in a full, timely and regular
manner.[56]

Transshipment requirements among GFCM Members are highly
uneven. Provisions regulating the transshipment of fish or fish products are
found in the fisheries laws of some
Members.[57] In one Member, transshipment at
sea is strictly prohibited, except in case of force
majeure.[58] In the other Members,
transshipment is subject to an authorization scheme. In one
Member[59], this requirement applies only for
transshipment at sea, whereas in the other states it is required for both
transshipments at sea and in port. In one Member, the authorization scheme
applies only to foreign fishing vessels, while transshipment by that
states fishing vessels is subject to an advance notice
procedure.[60] In EU law, prior authorization
is only required for third-country fishing vessels.

In two Members[61], masters
of fishing vessels are required to provide any prescribed information pursuant
to any transshipment.

2.2.8 Observer programmes

The IPOA-IUU encourages states to implement, where
appropriate, observer programmes in accordance with relevant national, regional
or international standards, including the requirement for vessels under their
jurisdiction to carry observers on board[62],
and to require observer coverage as a condition of an authorization to
fish.[63]

Fisheries legislation of some Members provides for the
establishment of observer programmes.[64] In
two Members[65], the fisheries law contains
language enabling the competent authority to impose the placing of observers on
board any vessel. License holders have a duty to allow designated observers to
stay on board and to facilitate the performance of their duties. In one
Member[66], the master of any foreign fishing
vessel authorized to fish for highly migratory species within its waters is
required to embark two observers on board, one appointed by the fisheries
administration, the other by the coast guard. EU law stipulates that Member
States are responsible for placing observers on board fishing vessels.

It is acknowledged that observer programmes may not
necessarily be required in fisheries legislation, but may operate de facto on
national or regional bases. In that case, the appointment, functions and
authority of observers - and duties of masters and crew towards them - should at
least be included in national legislation. Information on the legal provisions
relating to observers, as distinct from observer programmes, was not
available.

2.2.9 Vessel monitoring systems (VMS)

The IPOA-IUU encourages states, as part of undertaking
comprehensive MCS, to implement - where appropriate - a vessel monitoring system
(VMS) in accordance with the relevant national, regional or international
standards, including the requirement for vessels under their jurisdiction to
carry VMS on board.

This relatively new technology generally involves placement of
a transponder on a vessel, administration of a land-based receiver and
disposition of information received. VMS has been the subject of a corpus of
recently developed laws for various national governments to address the special
circumstances of its regulation. Some elements of such laws include the
requirements to install and maintain VMS according to certain specifications,
inspection of equipment, prohibition from tampering with the equipment,
procedures for failure of equipment, information to be transmitted and
confidentiality and ownership of information. VMS has been implemented on both
national and regional bases, and as noted below in Section 2.3, some GFCM
Members are in the process of developing its use.

Some GFCM Members laws contain provisions on
VMS[67], with the most comprehensive
established under EU law. It requires any Community fishing vessel and third
country vessel operating in Community waters to be equipped with a functioning
system which allows detection and identification of that vessel by remote
monitoring systems. It applies to vessels exceeding 18 m length overall from 1
January 2004, and to vessels exceeding 15 metres length overall from 1 January
2005.

2.2.10 Other laws

Other MCS-related measures in the IPOA-IUU that were not
covered in the review summarized above, but may need to be considered in future,
include designation of serious infringements, establishment of high fines or
penalties[68], the appointment of enforcement
officers (including relevant training standards for fisheries enforcement),
powers of enforcement officers (to ensure that they have appropriate powers for
enforcing measures suggested by the IPOA-IUU, including at sea, on land, in
buildings, vehicles and aircraft, and as appropriate in areas beyond national
jurisdiction), laws covering supply to IUU fishing vessels and other related
activities, requirements for navigation equipment (in order to promote
compliance with demarcated zones), and aspects of regional cooperation such as
information confidentiality and cooperation in surveillance and
enforcement.

2.3 Summary of existing MCS technical capacity in GFCM
Members

Current information on existing MCS technical capacity in GFCM
Members has not been compiled in a clear and comprehensive manner, so this
summary is sourced from a 2002 EC Communication that sets out an Action Plan for
Mediterranean Fisheries[69], and information
from the responding GFCM Members to an FAO questionnaire on implementation of
the IPOA-IUU, used as a basis for the June 2004 FAO Technical
Consultation.

MCS technical capacity is taken to cover not only new
technology such as VMS, but the ability to establish and maintain a range of
MCS-related activities set out in the IPOA-IUU, such as reporting, requirements
for fishing, capacity strengthening, observer programmes and other areas
including those for all states, coastal states and port states as set out in the
IPOA-IUU.

Although the EC Action Plan is an indication of priorities for
EU Member States rather than an explanation of existing MCS technical capacity,
and although subsequent follow-up to the priorities is not stated, it identifies
areas where such capacity needs to be strengthened. These include:

use of the VMS system for certain fleets, including vessels longer than
10 metres overall;

setting up a control and reporting framework for recreational fisheries
that target shared or straddling stocks or complete with commercial fisheries.

The responses of ten GFCM Members to the FAO questionnaire on
implementation of the IPOA-IUU, described in Section 1.3 above, indicate the MCS
measures and actions that have been taken by responding Members, and the areas
in which further activities are needed. The responses are summarized in Tables 2
and 3.

Eight respondents indicated that they have taken measures to
improve MCS[71], and some of these noted in
comments that this has included development of
VMS[72], increasing the control and
surveillance activities[73], adopting
procedures for IUU fishing[74] and
strengthening penalties.[75]

In relation to flag state responsibilities, most respondents
stated that they require the following:

express authorization for vessels to fish within areas of national jurisdiction;
and

express authorization to fish beyond areas of national jurisdiction.

Although most respondents reported that they have the means to
control the fishing activities of their registered vessels, some indicated that
there are limited human resources or other
inefficiencies.[77] Many indicated a policy or
practice to avoid registering vessels with a history of IUU fishing, and most
indicated that they:

maintain a comprehensive record of fishing vessels entitled to fly their
flag;[78]

coordinate the functions of registering fishing vessels and granting authorizations
to fish;[79]

where their flag vessel is identified as having engaged in IUU fishing,
take measures to prevent transshipment, other forms of assistance;[80]

prohibit or require prior authorization and reporting for transshipment
of vessels at sea.[81]

For high seas fishing activities, some Members report that
they have means to ensure their flag vessels do not undermine high seas fishery
conservation and management measures[82], and
two reports that they submit high seas fishing data to FAO.

The state of MCS technical capacities of members is reflected
in many responses under coastal state responsibilities. Where five or fewer
Members stated that they have taken certain actions or measures, it may indicate
a generally low MCS technical capacity (although this may also indicate the
absence of a proper legal or institutional framework). These areas
are:

knowledge of where most or all fishing vessels are fishing in areas under
national jurisdiction;[83]

Of the above, the fewest "yes" responses indicating that
actions had been taken were for an independent observer programme (two) and
mandatory radio reports on vessel position (three). Although only four Members
reported use of VMS, another three indicated they are planning to do
so.

Areas implemented by six or more responding Members
included:

capacity strengthening to conduct regular patrols where vessels are known
to fish;[88]

A relatively high number of responding Members - five -
indicated that they do not require VMS, radio and/or fax to determine
catch.[91] Five other respondents indicated
that they do have such
requirements.[92]

Requirements for granting access to foreign fishing vessels
were not applicable for a number of responding
Members[93], but some stated that, before
granting access, they verify that foreign fishing vessels have received
authorization from their flag state to fish in areas beyond national
jurisdiction.[94]

In general, about half of the responding Members indicated
that they have taken port state measures, and another four declared that some or
all of the measures are not applicable.[95] Six
responding Members reported that they require reasonable advance notice of entry
into port[96], five require details of the
fishing trip and quantities of fish on
board[97], and three each require a copy of the
authorization to fish[98] and grant access to
ports only when vessel inspection can be carried
out.[99]

Five responding Members stated that they require the following
information from foreign fishing vessels in port: flag state and vessel
identification details; name, nationality and qualifications of the master;
fishing gear and catch on board including origin, species, form and
quantity.[100] They also indicated that they
prohibit landings and transshipments from vessels in port where there are
grounds for suspecting IUU fishing, and immediately report the matter to
authorities in the flag state and, as appropriate, to an RFMO or other state
where IUU fishing occurred.

However, only two respondents stated that they have taken
action against a foreign IUU vessel in their port with the consent of the flag
state.[101]

A number of Members indicated cooperation through RFMOs to
combat IUU fishing, but in ways that do not closely relate to MCS technical
capacity.[102]

2.4 Summary of major constraints to combating IUU fishing in
GFCM Members

2.4.1 Identifying and quantifying IUU fishing
activities

A major constraint to combating IUU fishing in the
Mediterranean region is the difficulty of identifying and quantifying IUU
fishing activities. This difficulty could be linked partly to concerns about
existing weaknesses in fisheries management in the Mediterranean, including
uneven data submission by GFCM Members, the need for an operational integrated
database, uncertainties in stock evaluations and limited
MCS[103], as well as the unbalanced
institutional capacity of Members.

Future measures and actions to combat IUU fishing will involve
improved databases to support the decisions. Existing databases
include:

The Capture Database for the GFCM area, maintained at FAO, actually shows
a decrease in reported catch to 396 tonnes in 2000, down from 5 685 tonnes
in 1996, indicating but not identifying IUU fishing information.

The FAO High Seas Vessel Authorization Record (HSVAR), which currently
contains information from a limited range of countries. However, more countries
are providing information and work is under way to integrate this into the
Record.

The MedFisis project, noted above (Section 1.1), aiming at building an
integrated regional statistical system able to respond not only to the requirements
of the Commission but also to the need of individual countries and other
regional[104] and global[105]
levels of governance. The system would be managed by the GFCM Secretariat,
but each register and its statistics would fall under the authority of the
relevant national government and its rules and policies for information
distribution and confidentiality. The likely difficulty in the longer term
will be, in particular for the less developed countries or for countries
with limited fisheries outputs, to bear the burden of rather demanding systems.
A current objective is to complete a fleet census by the end of 2004 so
that standardized information will be available. Next year a pilot study
will be launched on all catch and effort surveys in all countries.

The ICCAT "List of Large-Scale Longline Vessels Believed to be Engaged
in IUU Fishing Activities in the ICCAT Convention Area and Other Areas",
which lists 378 vessels, a majority being "Flag of Convenience" vessels,
but only indicates the area transshipped, rather than fished.

Management measures adopted by ICCAT are relevant to GFCM
actions, given the robust GFCM/ICCAT collaboration. ICCAT reported measures
aimed at curbing IUU activities to the twenty-fifth session of GFCM (2000),
which seemed to have proved effective in reducing IUU
activities.[106] It has since adopted a
number of measures to combat IUU fishing, including establishment of an ICCAT
Record of Vessels over 24 m authorized to operate in the Convention
Area[107] and a list of vessels presumed to
have carried out IUU fishing activities in the ICCAT Convention
Area[108] and other
measures.[109]

Information on the FAO GFCM database on reported catches of
non-coastal countries in the Mediterranean from 1997, in Figure 1, shows that
the catch composition is comprised almost entirely of tuna. In fact, it only
shows negligible catches of other species in 2000 and 2001.

The composition of the catches other than tuna is mainly
sharks, as shown in Figure 2. Figures for other marine species caught show a
level of 7 tonnes in 2000 and 12 tonnes in 2001, with nothing for 2002 and the
years prior to 2000.

Figure 2

Composition of catches other than tuna by non-coastal
non-GFCM members in the Mediterranean (excluding Black Sea)

The percentage of tuna catches by non-coastal, non-GFCM
members out of the total tuna catches in the Mediterranean are reported between
a high of 4 percent in 1997 to a low of 0.3 percent in 2000, as shown in Figure
3. For 2002, it was reported at 1.11 percent.

Figure 3

Percentage of tuna catches by non-coastal (non-GFCM
members) on total tuna catches in the Mediterranean (excluding Black
Sea)

Even more dramatic was the percentage of catches by
non-coastal, non-GFCM Members of total catches in the Mediterranean, shown in
Figure 4. This indicates that the tuna catch constituted less than 0.1 percent
of the total catch in 2002. The catch of other species consistently hugged the 0
percent line, and was reported at between 0.09 percent and 0.02 percent in
recent years.

Figure 4

Percentage of catches by non-coastal countries (non-GFCM
members) on total tuna catches in the Mediterranean (excluding Black
Sea)

The statistics shown above collectively demonstrate that any
decision to combat IUU fishing would need to take into account the fact that
there is negligible reported fishing of species other than shark and tuna by
non-coastal, non-GFCM States in the region. This raises issues relating to the
costs and benefits of any proposed activities, and would favour activities that
can be carried out with commensurately minimal costs.

2.4.2 Types of IUU fishing and constraints to addressing
IUU fishing identified by GFCM Members

The FAO questionnaires on implementing the IPOA-IUU, which
focused on the issue at national level, requested states to identify the main
types of IUU fishing and constraints to addressing IUU fishing; these are shown
in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. Many respondents cited as the main types of IUU fishing
the use of illegal fishing gear, taking prohibited species or undersized fish
and fishing in prohibited areas or during closed seasons. One respondent
referred to taking non-target species and juveniles and using trawls on the high
seas.[110]

Constraints to addressing IUU fishing were cited as financial
constraints, insufficient means (including limited surveillance by patrol
craft), lack of professional training, shortages of MCS instruments, high social
costs to enforce laws to lower fishing effort, and no legal basis for combating
fishing on the high seas.

The questionnaire subsequently distributed to GFCM Members in
May, 2004 requested that they identify constraints for combating IUU fishing in
the GFCM region and identify solutions that may be taken at national and/or
regional levels. Four responses were received at the time of writing (see Tables
4 and 5.[111] Interestingly, while there was
some repetition they tended to enhance the constraints identified at national
level, and included:

lack of:

adequate means of control;

technical means of inspection;

proper input and output control mechanism and catch verification system;

qualified human resources;

adequate legislative measures;

technical and scientific support; and

GFCM register of authorized vessel that defines the type of vessel authorized,
the duties of a flag state and the consequences for vessels not included
in the register.

significant economic gains available through IUU fishing;

insufficient level of fishers awareness on responsible exploitation;
and

absence of internationally approved control measures and the diversity
of such measures encourage the development of IUU fishing above all in international
waters.

Some suggested solutions to the above constraints
were:

more effective use of enforcement units;

use of VMS in association with electronic logbooks;

implementation of an appropriate system of inspection;

GFCM establishment of an IUU Vessel List and actions to be taken against
these vessels;

formulation and adoption of new measures in view of recent data available;
and

enhancing awareness and sensitization of fishers.

Although the four responses do not constitute a significant
proportion of GFCM Members, they reflect some general concerns in the
region.

3. Practical implications of the decision to adopt a
step-by-step approach, including the establishment of vessel lists

3.1 Practical implications - general

As noted above, the 2003 Ministerial Declaration invited GFCM
to adopt at its twenty-ninth session measures based on the FAO IPOA-IUU with
priority for establishing procedures for identifying vessels carrying out IUU
activities (black list), as well as action to be taken against these vessels,
and furthermore, drawing up registers of vessels authorized to fish (white
list).

For purposes of this paper, and to harmonize the language with
its use in the IPOA-IUU and by other RFMOs, these lists will be respectively
referred to as "IUU Vessel List" (IUU List) and "Authorized Vessel List" (AV
List).

Adoption of a step-by-step approach should take into account
the priorities of the GFCM, constraints in implementing the IPOA-IUU, precedent
in other RFMOs (particularly ICCAT as appropriate), and the need for integrated
management, cost-effectiveness and capacity development in setting its agenda.
The fact that many other RFMOs have paved the way by already taking measures to
implement the IPOA-IUU should facilitate the task of GFCM.

Practical implications of adopting a step-by-step approach
would include the need to establish a working group or groups for specified
purposes. Mandate(s) could include review and recommendation of specified steps,
such as development of IUU and AV Lists, and recommendation of other steps as
appropriate, together with proposed priorities and a timetable. This should
include liaison with other RFMOs which have already taken the recommended steps,
and can encompass a review of other steps taken by
RFMOs.[112]

The agreement to establish AV Lists and IUU Lists as a first
step, noted above, is consistent with the measures encouraged by the
IPOA-IUU.[113] Most RFMOs have established
lists of vessels authorized to fish and exchange
them.[114] Some elements of AV Lists required
by some RFMOs are shown in Table 7 (p. 70). A number of RFMOs also maintain a
record of IUU fishing vessels[115], and have
adopted criteria for presuming that a vessel is engaged in IUU fishing
activities and therefore can be put on the IUU List. The presumption usually
relies on the fact that the vessel is fishing in the Area of Competence, without
being on the AV List.

The elements of such lists are similar for some RFBs that have
mandates over similar species[116], but
others tailor the lists to their specific needs. For the GFCM region, however,
the AV List would likely be region-specific because it would relate to vessels
authorized to fish for species subject to GFCM management measures.

As noted above, most RFMOs have established and maintain an AV
list. There are many benefits of adopting an AV List, including:

promoting compliance in the area of competence;

establishing a framework for flag state responsibility; and

providing a basis for exchange of information among members and with other
RFMOs.

For GFCM, an objective could be to support compliance with
GFCM conservation and management measures. Consideration could be given to
noting special features of the measures, such as their application to fishing
designated shared stocks by vessels greater than a designated size, or fishing
within areas of national jurisdiction of any GFCM member, including the flag
state. There are two main issues in deciding this:

whether to exclude the species covered by ICCAT in the spirit of cooperating
with requirements of its existing lists;

a decision on the requirements for minimum vessel size, which could take
into account the GFCM/SAC vessel segmentation and operational units.

The procedure to develop an AV List would entail steps along
the following lines.

1. Consider the mechanism for adopting the list. This is normally done as
a resolution or recommendation of the RFMO, but has also been included in
RFBs conservation and enforcement measures[117]
or as part of a general Scheme of Control and Enforcement.[118]
The RFBs that have adopted the latter two mechanisms have also adopted regional
inspection schemes, complete with agreed regional rules, inspectors and procedures.

2. Agreement that only vessels on the AV List will be entitled to engage
in fishing activities subject to GFCM management measures. This can be reinforced
through inclusion of a deeming clause: non-listed vessels can be "deemed not
to be authorized to fish for, retain on board, transship or land" stocks subject
to GFCM management measures.

3. Defining vessels:

authorized vessels (e.g. authorized by flag state in accordance with
GFCM management measures); and

minimum requirements for vessels to be listed, such as the size (e.g.
12 m or more).

4. Deciding whether the list of authorized vessels should be open only to
Members or to cooperating non-members as well.

5. If it is to be open to cooperating non-members, GFCM should determine
the criteria for achieving the status of cooperating non-members.

6. Deciding on the information to be maintained on the list.

7. Deciding on the mechanisms for information collection and dissemination.

8. Establishing confidentiality requirements as appropriate.

9. Deciding on the mechanism for establishment and administration of the
AV List; depending on the scope and duties related to this List, associated
Lists and information collection and dissemination functions, this could involve
assigning a person full time to the task.

10. Deciding on the information to be submitted, in accordance with the IPOA-IUU
and other international fisheries instruments.

11. Agreeing on measures that the flag states of authorized vessels must
take under national legislation to ensure compliance, which could be based
on the ICCAT Recommendation on the Duties of Contracting Parties and Cooperating
Non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Fishing Entities in Relation to their
Vessels Fishing in the ICCAT Convention Area.[119]

12. Agreeing on measures flag states must take to validate statistical information
as appropriate.

13. Deciding on publicity and dissemination, such as through the GFCM website
and with other RFBs as appropriate.

14. Adopting a resolution or other form of decision that specifies the requirements.
Such a resolution may state that vessels not entered into the record are deemed
not to be authorized to fish for, retain on board, transship or land the species
subject to GFCM management measures.

15. Making institutional arrangements to implement the resolution/decision.

16. Encouraging flag states that submit vessels for the AV List to ensure
that their national legislation and institutional capacity are able to implement
the agreed requirements.

3.3 Practical implications - establishment of an IUU Vessel
List and actions to be taken against IUU Vessels

Many RFMOs have established criteria in accordance with the
IPOA-IUU[120] for a presumption of IUU
fishing[121] and listing IUU fishing vessels,
including those presumed to be fishing.[122]
The objectives of establishing such a list include allowing for identification
and control of IUU fishing, and providing for measures to be taken against
vessels on the IUU List. In establishing an IUU Vessel List, care should be
taken to ensure that the process is fair, transparent and effective, and that
eventualities that would allow for delisting are addressed, such as change of
ownership or conclusion of judicial process.

A table showing some key representative measures adopted by
two RFMOs relating to the establishment of IUU Lists, is in Tables 8.1 and 8.2.
It reflects the need for development of criteria and procedures at regional
level, a mechanism agreed with Members for sightings, inspections and follow-up,
clear communication responsibilities involving the Secretariat, Members, IUU
vessel, flag states and other RFMOs as appropriate, mechanisms at national level
for imposition of sanctions and initiation of legal proceedings as appropriate
and enough institutional capacity at both levels to implement and maintain the
IUU List.

Based on existing practice of other RFMOs, it is suggested
that steps along the following lines would need to be considered in establishing
an IUU List together with actions to be taken against IUU vessels.

1. Decision on mechanism within GFCM for adopting the IUU List.

2. Defining the circumstances where the presumption will apply, including
considerations such as excluding vessels on the AV List, including a sighting
by a specified authority/authorities of an unauthorized vessel fishing for
fisheries subject to GFCM management measures, extending to transshipment
of IUU caught fish, other related activities as appropriate.

3. Defining procedures for sighting and reporting a vessel involved in IUU
fishing activities that undermine GFCM management measures. These could include:

specifying the reporting authorities;

information to be communicated to Secretariat;

details of Secretariats duty to transmit information onward;

procedure for sighting party to communicate with IUU fishing vessel;

other surveillance procedure as appropriate.

4. Procedures for inspection at sea as appropriate.

5. Procedures for inspection in port as appropriate, including prohibition
of landing, transshipping IUU caught fish.

6. Procedures for notification of presumed IUU fishing activities to flag
state, and requesting that enquiries, measures be taken against vessel.

7. Procedures and criteria for provisional and confirmed lists of IUU vessels.
This should include criteria for including vessels on a provisional list,
requirements for the Secretariat to communicate with Members in order that
they may provide evidence, comments, etc. and possibly review by a Working
Group of GFCM to recommend the vessels to be confirmed by the Commission as
IUU vessels.

8. Criteria for removal of vessels from IUU Vessel List, for example change
of ownership or because the flag state has taken effective action such as
imposition of sanctions.

9. Action to be taken by GFCM Members against vessels on IUU List. Such action
could include the following:

where possible, initiate legal proceedings and ensure that fines and
penalties are of adequate severity to provide a deterrent effect;

prohibit licensing of IUU vessels fishing in the Area of Competence;

prohibit their flag vessels from transshipment or other activities with
vessels on IUU List;

prohibit supply to IUU vessels;

inspect IUU vessels in port;

prohibit chartering IUU vessels;

refuse registration to IUU vessels;

prohibit imports and exports of fish caught by IUU vessels;

encourage importers, etc. not to deal with fish caught by IUU vessels;

report to GFCM, as appropriate.

10. Harmonize national legislation, to the extent possible, to facilitate
the above activities, including inspections, the initiation of legal proceedings
and allowing for the imposition of deterrent fines and penalties, especially
for offences that may be identified as serious offences by GFCM, consistent
with international law.[123]

4 Practical implications of elements of the 2003
Ministerial Declaration

4.1 Background

The 2003 Ministerial Declaration recognizes that the success
of a sustainable policy for the management and conservation of fishery resources
involves the implementation by the GFCM of an appropriate system of inspection
tailored to the specific nature of Mediterranean fisheries. It invited the GFCM
to adopt in 2004 policy guidelines of a control scheme with the aim of
progressively developing measures defining in particular the obligations of the
Parties, the use of new technologies and mechanisms for inspection at sea and in
port.

The 2003 Ministerial Declaration took the view that the system
of inspection should be based on the following principles:

(a) It must be in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement establishing the GFCM and
relevant existing international law.

(b) The emphasis must be placed on the primary responsibility
of the flag state as well as on the responsibility of the port state and of the
coastal state to ensure compliance with management measures.

(c) Account must be taken of the cost-effectiveness of both
the general measures applicable to all fisheries and the specific measures
applicable on a case-by-case basis to certain fisheries.

Development of principles for a system of inspection and the
formulation of policy guidelines are considered below.

4.2 Developing principles on which to base the implementation
by GFCM of an appropriate system of inspection tailored to the specific nature
of the Mediterranean fisheries

The development of systems of inspection through RFMOs has
gathered momentum over the past decade, in accordance with relevant
international law and principles.[124]
Systems have been developed for inspection both in port and at sea, and a
summary of relevant measures and institutional arrangements taken by some RFMOs
is in Table 9. Many of these systems may not be applicable to the nature of the
Mediterranean fisheries, because of factors such as:

a negligible IUU high seas reported catch for non-tuna species in the
Mediterranean as noted above;

the relatively elaborate institutional arrangements that exist in the
RFMOs and their member states to carry out implementation responsibilities
as indicated in Table 9;

the lack of appropriate capacity and equipment of some GFCM Members;

the indication by a number of GFCM Members in response to the FAO and
GFCM questionnaires that mounting such inspections may not be priorities.

However, many of the principles upon which these systems are
based could be relevant to any future GFCM inspection policy or initiative, to
the extent that they are consistent with international law and applicable to the
nature of Mediterranean fisheries.

Prior to considering the principles that may be appropriate
for GFCM, it is suggested that a decision be taken first, based on a needs
assessment, that a system of inspection should be established.

At such time as the principles underlying an inspection system
may be considered, it is suggested that they be as broad as possible. This would
acknowledge the fact that GFCM Members may not have considered elements of a
system of inspection, including policy guidelines or its objective and scope.
Further, adoption of broad principles would promote open-ended consideration of
an inspection system appropriate for Mediterranean fisheries, and, should such a
system be agreed, the elements it might contain.

Some basic principles for an inspection system that could be
considered appear below. While the principles elaborated in the 2003 Ministerial
Declaration have been included, some amendments, as noted, are suggested for
consideration:

(a) A system of
inspection must be in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement
establishing the GFCM and relevant international
law[125] (note that the GFCM Agreement would
need to be reviewed to establish whether an amendment is needed to accommodate
an inspection scheme).

(b) The emphasis must be placed on the primary responsibility
of the flag state as well as on the responsibility of the port state and of the
coastal state, as may be appropriate, to ensure compliance with the management
measures designated under an agreed GFCM inspection
scheme.[126]

or: The emphasis must be placed on the primary
responsibility of the flag state to ensure compliance with the management
measures designated under an agreed system of inspection, and must take full
account of the rights and duties of port states and coastal states to take
measures in accordance with international law and an agreed system of inspection
to promote the effectiveness of GFCM fisheries conservation and management
measures.[127]

(e) Development of a system of inspection must be in
accordance with policy guidelines for a control scheme adopted by
GFCM.

It is suggested that the principles be considered together
with policy guidelines on a control scheme, described in the next
section.

4.3 Formulation of policy guidelines on a control scheme, with
the aim of progressively developing measures defining, in particular, the
obligations of Members, the use of new technologies and mechanisms for
inspection at sea and in port

In considering the formulation of policy guidelines on a
control scheme, the objectives of such a scheme should first be identified - for
example to control fishing for all or some specified species, fisheries or
stocks subject to GFCM conservation and management measures. In this context,
the issue of whether to include tuna and tuna-like species in such a scheme
should be considered, mindful of cooperation with ICCAT, as should the scope of
the GFCM management measures and the incidence of fishing for non-tuna marine
species. A decision on the objective would be instrumental in guiding the
formulation of the scope and other elements of such a policy.

Second, the principles on which the policy guidelines are
based should be agreed, noting the discussion above.

Third, the scope of the policy should be considered. Some
relevant issues are: the type of activities the policy should embrace, the area
or stocks to which it should be applied, the financial, institutional and
capacity considerations in implementation and technological capabilities.
Various RFMOs have adopted control schemes that have a very broad scope,
featuring RFMO-authorized high seas inspectors and special pennants for boarding
and inspection activities. However, these may or may not be relevant to GFCM, in
terms of the differences in mandate, fisheries and stocks to be managed,
membership, geographical considerations and institutional
capabilities.

Some types of activities that could form the scope of a
control scheme are suggested below. The scope should be identified, bearing in
mind cost-effective and efficient means of attaining the agreed objective of the
policy.

(a) Activities that could be carried out by the Secretariat with the cooperation
of the members, in a cost-effective manner. These activities would likely
require additional personnel and some focused review by a subsidiary body
of GFCM. Examples of such activities would include the following:

establishing databases for members on fishing vessels and operational
units, and cooperating with members to exchange relevant information with
the Secretariat and other members as appropriate (i.e. a continuation
of the MedFisis project);

establishing and maintaining registers authorized and IUU fishing vessels
and making information available to Members and other RFMOs as appropriate
for their follow-up action;

promoting harmonization among Members in such areas as data and information
collection and exchange (e.g. through agreed reporting forms and requirements)
and legal provisions (e.g. for specified MCS requirements, and for sanctions
against IUU fishing such as prohibition of landings, transshipments, trade,
and appropriately high penalties for serious offences).

(b) Activities that would require more significant institutional strengthening
for GFCM and capacity development, legal reform and institutional strengthening
in many Members.

A system of inspection that may, inter alia, comprise the following
elements:

monitoring of landings, catches and fishing effort, including statistical
follow-up for management purposes;

port inspections - by inspectors authorized by the port state, possibly
in accordance with GFCM guidelines;

inspections at sea - by inspectors authorized by GFCM and/or Member
States;

procedures for inspections in port and at sea;

procedures for investigation and action following an alleged violation
of GFCM conservation and management measures, including procedures for
exchanging information;

provisions for appropriate action when inspections reveal serious violations,
and follow-up with a view to securing the effective exercise of flag state
responsibility.

The use of new technologies on a regional basis, discussed below, such
as VMS and electronic logbooks.

Fourth, once the objective and scope of the policy guidelines
are determined, a process for identification and prioritization of outputs
could be addressed. This could include:

establishment of a special working group to review, elaborate and prioritize
specific activities in view of the objective and scope of the policy guidelines;

identification of some specific activities to be considered by the special
working group for implementation - these could include, as suggested in
the 2003 Ministerial Declaration, progressively developing measures defining
the obligations of Members, the use of new technologies and mechanisms for
inspection at sea and in port, to the extent that they fall within the agreed
scope of the control scheme (described further below);

liaison by the special working group with other RFMOs that have implemented
the specific activities identified;

setting a target date if appropriate for the report of the special working
group.

If it is decided to progressively develop measures defining
the obligations of Members, use of new technologies and mechanisms for
inspection at sea and in port, the decision should be taken with the fullest
understanding possible of what may be involved. While is not possible to explain
what is involved without a decision as to the scope of the activities that may
be agreed, a profile of some relevant considerations is provided here to enhance
the appreciation of what may be involved.

Obligations of Members: The obligations associated with
improved control systems could include such areas as human capacity development,
institutional strengthening, law reform, dedicated time, personnel for regional
initiatives, acquisition and maintenance of appropriate technology and attendant
financial obligations. In the case of developing coastal states, it would mean
ensuring that appropriate financial assistance and scientific and technical
support is obtained. In particular, many Members would need to ensure that
trained personnel is available for carrying out tasks such as inspection and
enforcement, scientific functions, legal development and enforcement, and the
use of new technologies. The formulation of a specific regional support project
could be considered in this regard.

Use of new technologies: The term "new technologies"
refers to a range of items, including: computerized databases; automatic
cross-checking facilities of these information systems; VMS information
integrated with the data contained in the computerized catch and effort
registration systems; and electronic fishing logbooks and remote sensing by
satellite as a complementary tool to VMS. Before embarking on a course to define
measures for the use of new technologies, it may first be useful to take an
inventory of existing MCS practices and technologies in GFCM Members,
particularly databases and fisheries enforcement activities. An analysis of
Members practices and policies that govern fisheries
enforcement[129] would be useful as part of a
systematic assessment of the need for new technologies. It could also be
instructive to understand the effectiveness of existing arrangements in terms of
the impact on the fisheries, and whether the use of all the new technologies
described above, or some of them, would be appropriate for the fisheries
concerned.

Mechanisms for inspection at sea and in port: A
progressive development of measures defining mechanisms for inspection at sea
and in port would depend on a decision by GFCM that such an inspection scheme
should be developed, which has significant financial implications, and should be
preceded by consideration of the fisheries and stocks within GFCMs mandate
that should fall within an inspection system, if at all; whether IUU fishing for
such fisheries and stocks is significant; and if so, whether IUU fishing can be
successfully deterred through a cost-effective inspection system.

Otherwise, measures defining inspection mechanisms at sea and
in port are complex and comprehensive, as shown in Table 9. RFMOs that have
adopted such procedures generally have a mandate over a wide area of high seas
where significant IUU fishing is taking place. Consideration of current trends
towards extending jurisdiction would have to be taken into account as
well.

Measures to develop such mechanisms would need to be taken at
national and regional levels, and would include: agreed basis for inspection at
sea and in port; agreed purposes of inspection; agreed boarding and inspection
procedures for high seas inspections; a joint inspection and surveillance
scheme; an agreed protocol regarding the authorization of the inspectors, and
national laws stating the inspectors authorities, required procedures and
reporting responsibilities (that had been agreed at regional level); minimum
standards in conducting inspections; designating what inspections are to include
(e.g. vessels documents, log books, fishing gear, catch on board and any other
matter relating to the vessels activities in the GFCM area), prohibitions
if inspection produces evidence of IUU fishing, such as landing, transshipment,
etc.; requirements for transmission of information regarding the results of
inspection; other procedures for the Secretariat and national authorities to
take for follow-up action; requiring national governments to adopt laws that
provide for appropriate sanctions for vessels that do not comply with
inspections or enforcement, and that provide for activities on the high seas if
appropriate; establishing or designating a subsidiary body in GFCM to monitor,
report and make recommendations in relation to the inspections; and other
institutional strengthening of GFCM.

5 Summary options for consideration for establishment of a
special working group

It is clear that the topics covered in this "Review of
activity, measures and other considerations relating to IUU fishing in the
Mediterranean" raise a number of issues that should be further considered by
GFCM. Because of the complexity of the issues and the potential benefits of
identifying the most effective and efficient way forward, some options are
presented below for consideration for establishment of a special working group.
They are based on the 2003 Ministerial Declaration which, as noted above,
invited the GFCM to adopt at its twenty-ninth session:

effective measures to combat IUU fishing, with priority to establishing
an IUU Vessel List, as well as actions to be taken against these vessels,
and drawing up registers of vessels authorized to fish (AV list); and

the policy guidelines of a control scheme with the aim of progressively
developing measures defining in particular the obligations of the Parties,
the use of new technologies and mechanisms for inspection at sea and in
port.

This review has examined aspects of each of these points, and
in addition has reported information on the Mediterranean fisheries,
Members laws and implementation of the IPOA-IUU, including MCS
capabilities. In general, although initiatives such as MedFisis and the regional
legal review have taken steps to make it increasingly possible to work from a
broader information basis, it appears that there is significant scope for
further activities to harmonize and strengthen efforts to combat IUU fishing.
However, such activities should be identified and pursued on the basis of the
management objectives and measures of GFCM, and of a realistic evaluation of the
needs and capabilities of GFCM and its membership.

For that reason, a special working group should be established
to review and make recommendations on mechanisms, principles and policy
guidelines to combat IUU fishing ("The Special Working Group on IUU Fishing
Activities", or SWG-IUU). Some options for consideration relating to the
establishment and terms of reference of the SWG-IUU appear below.

1. The SWG-IUU should be comprised of a balance of Members,
representing GFCM subregions equitably.

2. The SWG-IUU should take note of information in the present
Review of Activity, including:

the circumstances of IUU fishing specific to the Mediterranean and to
the mandate and activities of GFCM;

the practical implications of the Commissions decision at the twenty-eighth
session to adopt a step-by-step approach to combating IUU fishing;

the practical implications of the 2003 Ministerial Declaration.

3. In view of its conclusions reached under item 2 above, the
SWG-IUU should recommend the next steps to be taken by GFCM to combat IUU
fishing, either generally or specifically. General steps may include, inter
alia, further information gathering and assessment; specific needs
assessment; and liaison with other RFMOs. Specifically, the SWG-IUU should
assess and make recommendations on the advantages and/or disadvantages involved
in GFCM adopting the following actions and measures, and as appropriate propose
priority steps:

the establishment of an IUU Vessel List, including cost/benefit, procedures,
institutional arrangements and a timetable;

the establishment of an Authorized Vessel List, including cost/benefit,
procedures institutional arrangements and a timetable;

the development of a system of inspection tailored to the specific nature
of the Mediterranean fisheries, and principles upon which to base such a
system;

formulation of policy guidelines on a control scheme with the aim of progressively
developing measures defining, in particular, the obligations of Members,
the use of new technologies and mechanisms for inspection at sea or in port.

It is foreseen that, in taking a step-by-step approach, and
ensuring that effective steps are taken in response to clear needs and
capabilities in the GFCM region, the SWG-IUU will be able to steward an active
and meaningful role for GFCM over time in efforts to combat IUU
fishing.

[7] This appendix was originally
circulated as the background working document for the GFCM Workshop held
on 23 and 26 June 2004. Published here with slight editorial modifications
with respect to the original working document, it contains the full report
of the development initiatives to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated
(IUU) fishing activities. It refers to issues relating to implementation
of the IPOA-IUU in the Mediterranean (Black Sea excluded), and the progress
and constraints of GFCM members in combating IUU fishing activities. In
particular, it refers to adoption of national plans of action and related
instruments by GFCM members, existing national law relating to monitoring,
control and surveillance (MCS), and existing MCS technical capacity among
members. Efforts to identify and quantify IUU fishing activities in the
Mediterranean are reported, and members constraints in addressing
these activities are reviewed. Practical implications of decisions relating
to steps GFCM may consider taking are described, and summary options for
consideration for establishment of a special working group are recommended.[8] These are described in detail
in GFCM/XXVIIII/Inf.6.[9] Report of the twenty-fifth
session, paras. 33 and 35. The Secretariat was asked to address this situation
using all means available.[10] The 2002 EC Community Action
Plan for conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
in the Mediterranean Sea under the Common Fisheries Policy, approved by
the EC Council.[11] Report of the twenty-eighth
session, paras. 53 and 54.[12] Ministerial Declaration,
paras. 8 and 9.[13] The principles specified
are that (a) it must be in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement
establishing the GFCM and relevant existing international law; (b) the emphasis
must be placed on the primary responsibility of the flag state as well as
on the responsibility of the port state and of the coastal state to ensure
compliance with management measures; and (c) account must be taken of the
cost-effectiveness of both the general measures applicable to all fisheries
and the specific measures applicable on a case-by-case basis to certain
fisheries.[14] GFCM/XXVIIII/Inf.6.[15] The instruments include
the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1993 FAO Compliance
Agreement, the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement and the 1995 FAO
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and its International Plans of
Action.[16] See J. Swan, International
action and responses by Regional Fishery Bodies or Arrangements to prevent,
deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, FAO
Fisheries Circular, No. 996, Rome, 2004 (64 p).[17] Specifically, promoting
implementation of MCS by members in their jurisdictions, real-time catch
and vessel monitoring systems, monitoring landings and regulation of transshipment.[18] Algeria, Cyprus, EC, Egypt,
Japan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey.[19] Except for capacity strengthening.[20] Several indicated this
was not applicable, or "n/a".[21] Several indicated "n/a",
but advance notice of entry into port is required by six respondents.[22] Algeria, EU, Italy, Japan,
Libyan A.J. and Turkey.[23] Including responsibilities
of all states, flag states, coastal states and port states, internationally
agreed market measures and research, as well as through regional fisheries
management organizations and special requirements of developing countries.[24] The reviews respectively
cover: CopeMed - Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libyan A.J., Malta, Italy, France,
Spain and the European Union; and AdriaMed - Albania, Croatia, Italy and
Slovenia. The CopeMed review shows great variances in marine fisheries management
frameworks and measures. For the most part commercial fishing within areas
of national jurisdiction is reserved for national flag vessels, and only
four countries require authorizations for national fishing vessels to fish
beyond areas of national jurisdiction. Access agreements are usually required
for non-national vessels. It provides for a comparative table on fishing
effort showing by country a variety of measures, including limitation of
fishing licenses and effort by areas/seasons, and management by quota or
total allowable catch (TAC). All states have regulations on minimum size
of fish and gear or fishing methods. Most regulate the length, tonnage and
power of vessels. The AdriaMed review describes inter alia access regimes,
conservation and management measures and MCS. It shows a wide variety of
practices with respect to licensing for the various subsectors, effort and
gear limitation and fisheries reserves, and for MCS purposes, registers,
landing requirements, data collection, and observers.[25] P. Cacaud, Fisheries laws
and regulation in the Mediterranean: a comparative study, Studies and
Reviews, General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, No. 75,
Rome, FAO, 43p [in press].[26] Paras. 34 - 40.[27] Paras. 42, 42.1 - 42.6
and 43.[28] Six countries: Albania,
Libyan A.J., Malta, Slovenia, Spain and Syrian A. R., and the EU. No information
was available for Greece and Lebanon.[29] For example, Albania and
Croatia distinguish between large and small vessels; in Albania, large vessels
are defined as those having a deck.[30] For example, registration
of fishing vessels is a consequence of licensing rather than a prerequisite
in Albania and Slovenia.[31] Some countries require
registers to be kept at local level and others at district or national level,
or a combination of the levels.[32] Albania, Algeria, Italy,
Spain and Syrian A. R.[33] For example, in Italy,
any person having been convicted for more than five major violations of
the fisheries law is barred from registration in the register of professional
fishers.[34] Paragraph 47.8. of the
IPOA-IUU.[35] Including Albania, Cyprus,
Egypt, EU, France, Libyan A.J., Malta, Morocco, Syrian A.R. and Turkey.[36] Paragraph 24.10.[37] Albania, Croatia, Malta,
Spain, Slovenia, Syrian A.R. and Tunisia are cited in the review, and it
is noted that while no specific provisions with respect to inspection were
found in the legislation of other countries, it is likely that enforcement
officers in the other countries are also empowered to inspect fishing vessels.[38] EU Member States are authorized
to:
(a) inspect Community vessels flying their flag in all Community waters
outside waters under the sovereignty of another Member State;
(b) carry out inspections in accordance with the rules of the Common Fisheries
Policy (CFP) relating to fishing activities in all Community waters outside
waters under their sovereignty on fishing vessels, only:

(i) after authorization of the coastal Member State concerned; or
(ii) where a specific monitoring programme has been adopted in accordance
with Art. 34c of Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93; and

(c) inspect Community fishing vessels flying the flag of another Member
State in international waters.[39] For example, paragraph
58 of the IPOA-IUU states that: In the exercise of their right to inspect
fishing vessels, port states should collect the following information
and remit it to the flag state and, where appropriate, the relevant regional
fisheries management organization:

58.1 the flag state of the vessel and identification details;
58.2 name, nationality, and qualifications of the master and the fishing
master;
58.3 fishing gear;
58.4 catch on board, including origin, species, form, and quantity;
58.5 where appropriate, other information required by relevant regional
fisheries management organizations or other international agreements;
and
58.6 total landed and transshipped catch.

47.2.1 time series of catch and effort statistics by vessel;
47.2.2 total catch in number, nominal weight, or both, by species (both
target and non-target) as is appropriate to each fishery period (nominal
weight is defined as the live weight equivalent of the catch);
47.2.3 discard statistics, including estimates where necessary, reported
as number or nominal weight by species, as is appropriate to each fishery;
47.2.4 effort statistics appropriate to each fishing method; and
47.2.5 fishing location, date and time fished and other statistics on
fishing operations.

49.1 the date and location of all of their transshipments of fish at
sea;
49.2 the weight by species and catch area of the catch transshipped;
49.3 the name, registration, flag and other information related to the
identification of the vessels involved in the transshipment; and
49.4 the port of landing of the transshipped catch.

· establishment of and cooperation in
the exchange of information on vessels engaged in or supporting IUU
fishing (paragraph 80.4);
· development and maintenance of records
of vessels fishing in the area of competence of a relevant regional
fisheries management organization, including both those authorized to
fish and those engaged in or supporting IUU fishing (paragraph 80.5).

[114] For example, CCAMLR,
CCSBT, CTMFM, FFA, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, IPHC, NAFO, NEAFC.[115] For example, CCAMLR,
CTMFM, IATTC, IBSFC, ICCAT, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC, NPAFC.[116] A common concern among
RFMOs with a mandate over similar species is the fact that large-scale
vessels are highly mobile and easily change fishing grounds. They have
the potential of operating in the area of competence without timely registration
and may also undertake such evasive action as "laundering" fish so they
appear as catch of authorized vessels. The development and exchange of
lists of authorized vessels is therefore important to combating IUU fishing
on an interregional basis.[117] NAFO.[118] NEAFC. However, this
would not necessarily be relevant for GFCM at this stage.[119] Recommendation 02-12.[120] Paragraph 80.11: definition
of circumstances in which vessels will be presumed to have engaged in
or to have supported IUU fishing.[121] E.g. CCAMLR, ICCAT,
NEAFC, NAFO.[122] E.g. CCAMLR, CCSBT,
IOTC, ICCAT, NEAFC.[123] The 1995 UN Fish Stocks
Agreement identifies serious offences, and some RFMOs (such as NAFO) have
identified serious offences. See also EC Report on the Monitoring of the
Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, Synthesis of the Implementation
of the Control System Applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy by Member
States, Brussels, 28.09.2001, COM(2001) 526 final and p:\Infr.graves-Rapport2003\greffe2000\Communication-EN
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament,
Behaviour which seriously infringed the rules of the Common Fisheries
Policy in 2002.[124] In particular, the
1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement refers to such systems of inspection in
relation to the high seas in Articles 21 and 22.[125] As expressed in the
2003 Ministerial Declaration, except for reference to relevant "existing"
international law. It is suggested that the word "existing" not be included
because (a) if it had ceased to exist, it would not be relevant; and (b)
"existing" implies the law that exists at the point in time that the principles
were adopted. It does not therefore take into account that international
law is a dynamic and changing system, and implies that any future international
law is precluded from consideration.[126] As expressed in the
2003 Ministerial Declaration, except that as it stood it indicated that
at-sea and in-port inspections will be carried out. This predetermines
the scheme, which has not yet been considered. Therefore, the language
"as may be appropriate" was added. Language was also added to identify
management measures "designated under an agreed GFCM inspection scheme".
Otherwise it could be thought to apply to any management measures, including
national measures of GFCM Members.[127] This version is based
more fully on the language used in international instruments, and is respectful
of port state and coastal state sovereignty, which could likely be an
issue for some Members.[128] The principle of cost-effectiveness
suggested in the 2003 Ministerial Declaration is unclear, as it makes
no explicit reference to an inspection system. Instead, it refers to general
and specific measures, which could be understood to mean general "measures"
against IUU fishing or conservation and management "measures". Or, if
it does refer to an inspection system it appears to prejudge the form
and procedures for an inspection scheme by assuming it will apply both
to all fisheries and to specific fisheries. In addition, it recommends
only that cost-effectiveness is something to be taken into account, but
this does not connote implementation.[129] For example, designation
of what initiates enforcement activity: reports of sightings, routine
patrols, port inspections? Is this activity based on a current database
of fishing activities? Is there a policy to prioritize prosecutions of
serious offences, or offences in relation to certain species or infringements?
Is there a policy to use technologically advanced methods or is this not
practicable?